Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 23 references

Physical anchoring with a cable-driven prismatic gripper turns a tilt-rotor UAV into a stable work platform, cutting positional drift RMSE by over 95% and holding against 75 N of longitudinal load.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Anchoring a tilt-rotor UAV to a target with a cable-driven prismatic gripper cuts positional drift by over 95% and holds longitudinal reaction forces up to 75 N.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-04 challenge →

load-bearing objection Solid hardware contribution with genuine anchoring data, but the abstract oversells the 75 N as a sustained capability and the drilling application is untested. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2608.01736 v1 pith:HCXG4FAO submitted 2026-08-03 cs.RO

A Tilt-Rotor UAV with a Gripper for Stable Contact-Based Tasks via Environmental Anchoring

Joshua Taylor , Nursultan Imanberdiyev , Wei-Yun Yau , Guillaume Sartoretti , Efe Camci This is my paper
classification cs.RO
keywords tilt-rotor UAVenvironmental anchoringcable-driven gripperunderactuated gripperaerial manipulationperchingphysical interactionUAV stability
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper is trying to establish that an aerial robot can stop behaving like a hovering platform and instead become a fixed work platform by clamping onto its environment. The authors built a tilt-rotor UAV that can hover nose-up or nose-down at steep angles, paired with an underactuated gripper whose sliding prismatic jaws wrap around poles, branches, columns, and even irregular objects. In real flight tests, anchoring cut positional drift by over 95% compared with the same airframe in free flight, kept drift under 3 mm even in wind, and withstood a 75 N longitudinal pull. If those numbers hold in the field, tasks that need sustained force and precise contact—like drilling into a tree to sample its health—become practical for small aerial robots. The paper also quantifies the cost: the gripper adds about 35% energy consumption during interaction.

Core claim

The central claim is that physically anchoring a UAV to the object it interacts with—rather than relying solely on active flight control—can turn it into a stable work platform. The paper demonstrates this with a hardware system consisting of a tilt-rotor airframe that hovers at pitch angles from -60° to +55°, and an underactuated, cable-driven prismatic gripper whose jaws close rectilinearly, pulling the airframe toward the target. In eight real-robot scenarios combining level and 60-degree-pitched operation with and without fan-generated wind, the anchored configuration kept 3D positional drift RMSE at or below 3 mm and angular drift RMSE at or below 0.39°, whereas the free-flight baseline

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the coupling of a pitch-decoupled tilt-rotor airframe with an underactuated prismatic gripper. The tilt-rotor adds pitch as a fifth control input, so the body can hold a non-zero pitch angle while the thrust vector still balances the position error—allowing approach to inclined surfaces without drifting. The gripper's two fingers are four prismatic joints (intermediate and distal links on each side) driven by antagonistic cable sets through a single servo; because the cables run through pulley differentials, the joints move independently, giving compliance to irregular target shapes. Its rectilinear closing motion pulls the UAV into the target rather than pushin

Load-bearing premise

All stabilization and force numbers assume a rigid target whose pose is known ahead of time from an external motion-capture system; real branches that flex, and field conditions without external tracking, are not covered by the reported results.

What would settle it

Anchor the same UAV to a branch that measurably deflects under the gripper's pull, with state estimation from onboard sensors instead of external motion capture, and record positional drift RMSE and the force at which the grasp slips. If drift exceeds 3 mm or the anchor gives way below 75 N, the headline figures are specific to stiff, externally-tracked targets.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • A 5-controlled-DoF tilt-rotor plus passive anchoring can reach the interaction stability that generally needs a fully actuated 6-DoF platform, at lower mechanical complexity.
  • The 75 N longitudinal resistance covers the reaction forces of common drilling and screwing tools, so those tasks become plausible for this class of UAV.
  • Because anchored drift RMSE stayed at or below 3 mm across every scenario, a tool mounted on the platform can hold one contact point instead of smearing over centimetres.
  • The dynamic position-setpoint switch resolves the controller-versus-constraint conflict, and should carry over to other anchoring end-effectors.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper leaves unexamined how a real, compliant branch moves under the gripper's pulling force; transferring the 3 mm and 75 N numbers to natural vegetation will require estimating and compensating target motion.
  • The same rectilinear clamp-and-pull gripper concept could generalize beyond aerial platforms, e.g., to ground or wall-climbing robots where pull-in contact and force predictability are useful.
  • If the planned 'leaning' strategy reduces the reported ~35% energy penalty of carrying the gripper, anchoring could start to pay off energetically, not only in stability—an effect the current experiments do not yet demonstrate.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents a tilt-rotor UAV integrated with a novel underactuated, cable-driven prismatic gripper for environmental anchoring. It describes the mechanical design, the PX4-based control architecture (including the tilt-servo law in Eq. (1) and the dynamic position setpoint in Eq. (2)), and a series of real-robot experiments. The experiments compare a gripper-removed free-flight configuration with the grasping configuration under level, pitched, and wind-disturbed conditions; quantify sustained and maximum longitudinal loads; test gripper versatility across target geometries; and evaluate contact precision with a felt-tip pen. The main claims are that anchoring reduces positional drift RMSE by over 95%, that the anchored system can withstand reaction forces up to 75 N while maintaining a stable pose, that drift RMSE never exceeds 3 mm across target geometries, and that the approach is viable for tasks such as drilling to sample tree health.

Significance. If the empirical claims hold, this is a useful contribution to aerial physical interaction: a hardware platform that transitions from free flight to a rigidly anchored work platform, with quantitative evidence of large drift reduction under realistic disturbances. The strengths are the real-robot evaluation, five repeated trials per stabilization condition, quantitative RMSE reporting, first-attempt anchoring across diverse geometries, and the detailed hardware/control description. The paper is empirical rather than theoretical, and its value is in the measured data. However, several headline claims go beyond the evidence: the 75 N figure is a single failure threshold, the drilling task is not tested, and the free-flight baseline does not isolate anchoring from mass/configuration changes. These issues are fixable by reframing the claims.

major comments (4)
  1. [§V-B, Table IV, Fig. 9, Abstract] The abstract and conclusion claim the anchored system 'can withstand longitudinal reaction forces up to 75 N while maintaining a stable pose.' The data do not support the 'stable pose' qualifier: the single Maximum Force run ended in anchor failure at ≈75 N, with positional drift reaching 20 mm, an order of magnitude above the ≤3 mm criterion used elsewhere. Sustained loading was tested only at ≈41 N, with 1 mm residual drift. The 75 N value is a failure threshold, not a demonstrated operational capability. Please rephrase to distinguish sustained capability (≈41 N) from the single pull-to-failure measurement (≈75 N), and either report more than one Maximum Force trial or label it explicitly as exploratory.
  2. [§V-C, §VI, Abstract] The motivating application, drilling to sample tree health, is never tested. Section V-C uses a felt-tip pen as a 'contact proxy,' and the high-force tests use a longitudinal string pull; drilling imposes axial force plus torque and lateral loads that neither test reproduces. The conclusion states the results 'validate our approach ... enabling complex, contact-based aerial tasks such as drilling,' but this is directly contradicted by the paper's own future-work sentence: 'We will also integrate task-specific end-effectors, like a drill, to evaluate the system's resilience to task-generated forces.' The claims should be limited to anchoring and contact maintenance; drilling should be presented as future validation, not a demonstrated capability.
  3. [§V, opening paragraph and §V-B] All experiments assume the target object's pose is fixed and known a priori, with state estimation provided by OptiTrack. The reported drift and force numbers are therefore conditional on rigid, known-pose targets. Real tree branches are compliant, may move under load, and would require onboard (likely vision-based) state estimation. This limitation is stated in one sentence but is not reflected in the abstract/conclusion claims about natural environments and tree-health sampling. Please state the rigid-target assumption explicitly as a boundary of the reported performance and temper the real-world applicability claims accordingly.
  4. [§V-A, Free Flight definition] The 'Free Flight' baseline is not the same platform without anchoring: it is a 3.67-kg vehicle with the gripper removed, while the Grasping configuration is the 4.5-kg full platform. The two configurations also have different rotor loading and throttle distributions (≈60%/50% front/rear with gripper vs ≈40%/60% without). The reported 95% reduction therefore includes effects of mass, center-of-gravity location, and rotor configuration, not solely the effect of anchoring. To support the causal claim that anchoring itself improves stability, please add a same-hardware unanchored condition (gripper mounted but not grasping) or explicitly discuss why the gripper-removed baseline is the appropriate comparison and bound the potential confound.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§V-A, Table III] The abstract says 'over 95%' reduction in positional drift RMSE under wind. From Table III, Level + Wind gives (0.037−0.002)/0.037 ≈ 94.6%, while only Pitched + Wind exceeds 95%. Please use 'up to 95%' or name the specific scenario.
  2. [Figure 7] The caption says 'transient stabilization performance for the 60°-pitched tests,' but panels (a) and (c) appear to be level flight. Check the caption or panel labels.
  3. [Table IV] The Maximum Force row reports a single trial with no indication of n=1; add 'n=1' or 'single trial' to avoid implying repeated measurement.
  4. [Throughout] The text uses 'UA V' with inconsistent spacing; standardize to 'UAV'. Also, the phrase 'the second, smaller pen mark was made during initial grasping' in §V-C could be accompanied by a scale or explanation of how grasp formation creates a second mark.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: the paper's headline results are measured flight data, not derived from or fitted to their own claims.

full rationale

The stabilization and force claims are empirical: Table III, Table IV, and Fig. 9 report measured drift and force over repeated trials. The 95% RMSE reduction is a comparison of measured free-flight vs grasped drift, not a prediction generated from a model fitted to that same quantity. The gripper current threshold and controller gains are tuned parameters, but they are not used to predict the reported drift; the drift is directly measured. The dynamic position setpoint (Eq. 2) is a control-law design choice, not a camouflaged restatement of the result: it explains how the controller avoids fighting the anchor, but the measured sub-3 mm drift is the experimental outcome. Self-citations [13] and [23] supply design lineage, motivation, and comparison values from prior peer-reviewed empirical/simulation work; they do not by themselves force the measured outcomes. The paper itself flags the recognized limitations—single Maximum Force run, felt-tip pen as contact proxy, rigid known target pose, and future drill integration—which are scope/correctness caveats rather than circular dependencies. No step in the derivation chain reduces to its own input.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central empirical claims rest mainly on measured flight data, so the axiom load is conventional control assumptions plus the experimental framing. The main domain assumptions are that the target is fixed, rigid, and pose-known from OptiTrack, that fan-generated wind represents environmental disturbance, and that a longitudinal string pull represents interaction forces. The free parameters are empirically tuned grasp and controller settings, not hidden postulates.

free parameters (4)
  • Gripper servo current threshold
    Section IV-A: grasp completion threshold chosen empirically; it determines when anchoring stops closing and affects grasp security.
  • Tilt-servo velocity PID gains (Kp,beta, Ki,beta, Kd,beta)
    Equation (1): tuned during flight testing; controls hover at non-zero pitch and longitudinal motion.
  • Pitch/roll attitude controller gains for both configurations
    Section V: separately tuned per configuration with trial and error; comparison fairness depends on these.
  • Carriage tension on gripper linear rails
    Section III-B: hand-tuned to set preferential closing order of intermediate vs distal links; affects grasp of irregular targets.
axioms (5)
  • standard math PX4 cascaded PID architecture is a valid base control scheme for this modified tilt-rotor UAV.
    Section IV-B: controller builds on PX4 [22] with a fifth pitch input.
  • domain assumption Target object pose is fixed and known a priori from motion capture.
    Section V: 'we assume the target object's pose is fixed and known a priori.'
  • domain assumption Two oscillating fans generate a wind disturbance representative of real windy conditions.
    Section V-A: wind produced by fans in oscillation mode, not characterized outdoor wind.
  • domain assumption A longitudinal string pull is a useful proxy for interaction forces such as drilling.
    Section V-B: authors state it does not fully capture the forces and torques of tasks like drilling.
  • domain assumption The gripper-removed Free Flight configuration is an acceptable baseline for unanchored performance.
    Section V: Free Flight uses a lighter airframe with gripper removed, retained coaxial rotors, and separately tuned gains.

reviewed 2026-08-04 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Tilt-Rotor UAV with a Gripper for Stable Contact-Based Tasks via Environmental Anchoring." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HCXG4FAO

@misc{pith2026260801736,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Tilt-Rotor UAV with a Gripper for Stable Contact-Based Tasks via Environmental Anchoring},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HCXG4FAO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.01736}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Maintaining a stable pose during physical interaction is a significant challenge for aerial robots, often limiting their use in contact-based tasks. This paper presents a novel uncrewed aerial vehicle (UAV) platform designed to transition from unconstrained flight to a stable, constrained work platform via environmental anchoring. Our system comprises: 1) a multirotor with a tilt-rotor mechanism that decouples pitch from forward motion, enabling stable hover at non-zero pitch angles, and 2) a novel underactuated, cable-driven, prismatic gripper featuring compliance to adapt to irregular geometries, designed to stabilize the UAV by anchoring it to its environment. We present the design and prototyping of the complete system and validate its performance through a series of real-robot flight tests. Results demonstrate that anchoring significantly improves stability for interaction tasks, reducing positional drift RMSE by over 95% compared to a free-flight baseline, even under windy conditions. The anchored system can withstand longitudinal reaction forces up to 75N while maintaining a stable pose. Furthermore, across a range of target geometries and orientations, the system demonstrated consistent stability with a positional drift RMSE that never exceeded 3mm. These results establish the viability of our approach for complex physical interaction tasks, such as sampling tree health by drilling or sensor installation in hard-to-reach locations. Watch our UAV at: https://youtu.be/HDQ8S4ZW3Ls

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.01736 by Efe Camci, Guillaume Sartoretti, Joshua Taylor, Nursultan Imanberdiyev, Wei-Yun Yau.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Tilt-rotor UAV with cable-driven gripper anchored onto a 60° over [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The gripper design and cable actuation. (a) Key mechanical components. (b) Routing of the extensor cable set showing how rotation of the gripper servo translates into opening the gripper. (c) Routing of the flexor cable set, viewed from the underside of the UAV, showing how opposite rotation of the gripper servo translates into closure of the gripper. (a) (b) (c) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: An example sequence of the gripper grasping onto an irregularly [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The prototype of our UAV with gripper, with the body frame axes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Our modified PX4 architecture with the UAV’s pitch angle as the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The eight experimental scenarios used to assess stabilization [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Setup for the high-force pulling tests, in which a string is attached [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Maximum Force test results showing the synchronized force (top) and drift (bottom) relative to the interaction start. Dashed lines denote the failure point where the anchor supports a maximum load of ≈ 75 N. 1) High-Force Tests: With the UAV anchored to the target, we attached a string to the rear of the airframe, aligned approximately with its longitudinal (XB) axis, as shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Testing our gripper’s performance on a range of target objects, including [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: End-effector precision under wind disturbances: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_11.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A perching and tilting aerial robot for precise and versatile power tool work on vertical walls,

    R. Dautzenberg, T. K ¨uster, T. Mathis, Y . Roth, C. Steinauer, G. K ¨appeli, J. Santen, A. Arranhado, F. Biffar, T. K ¨otteret al., “A perching and tilting aerial robot for precise and versatile power tool work on vertical walls,” inProceedings of IROS 2023, pp. 1094–1101

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Active interaction force control for contact- based inspection with a fully actuated aerial vehicle,

    K. Bodie, M. Brunner, M. Pantic, S. Walser, P. Pf ¨andler, U. Angst, R. Siegwart, and J. Nieto, “Active interaction force control for contact- based inspection with a fully actuated aerial vehicle,”IEEE Transac- tions on Robotics, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 709–722, 2020

    2020

  3. [3]

    Drone-assisted collection of environmental dna from tree branches for biodiversity monitoring,

    E. Aucone, S. Kirchgeorg, A. Valentini, L. Pellissier, K. Deiner, and S. Mintchev, “Drone-assisted collection of environmental dna from tree branches for biodiversity monitoring,”Science robotics, vol. 8, no. 74, p. eadd5762, 2023

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Dragonfly drone: A novel tilt-rotor aerial platform with body-morphing capability,

    S. W. Hameed, A. L. J. Jie, N. Imanberdiyev, E. Camci, W.-Y . Yau, and M. Feroskhan, “Dragonfly drone: A novel tilt-rotor aerial platform with body-morphing capability,” inProceedings of ICRA 2025, pp. 8642–8648

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    Minimally actu- ated tiltrotor for perching and normal force exertion,

    D. Lee, S. Hwang, C. Kim, S. J. Lee, and H. J. Kim, “Minimally actu- ated tiltrotor for perching and normal force exertion,” inProceedings of IROS 2023, pp. 5027–5033

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Crash-perching on vertical poles with a hugging-wing robot,

    M. Askari, M. Benciolini, H.-V . Phan, W. Stewart, A. J. Ijspeert, and D. Floreano, “Crash-perching on vertical poles with a hugging-wing robot,”Communications Engineering, vol. 3, no. 1, p. 98, 2024

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Interac- tion control of an uav endowed with a manipulator,

    J. L. Scholten, M. Fumagalli, S. Stramigioli, and R. Carloni, “Interac- tion control of an uav endowed with a manipulator,” inProceedings of ICRA 2013, pp. 4910–4915

    work page 2013

  8. [8]

    Design, sensing, and control of a novel uav platform for aerial drilling and screwing,

    C. Ding, L. Lu, C. Wang, and C. Ding, “Design, sensing, and control of a novel uav platform for aerial drilling and screwing,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 3176–3183, 2021

    work page 2021

  9. [9]

    Perching and resting—a paradigm for uav maneuvering with modularized landing gears,

    K. Hang, X. Lyu, H. Song, J. A. Stork, A. M. Dollar, D. Kragic, and F. Zhang, “Perching and resting—a paradigm for uav maneuvering with modularized landing gears,”Science Robotics, vol. 4, no. 28, p. eaau6637, 2019

    2019

  10. [10]

    Bird-inspired dynamic grasping and perching in arboreal environments,

    W. R. Roderick, M. R. Cutkosky, and D. Lentink, “Bird-inspired dynamic grasping and perching in arboreal environments,”Science Robotics, vol. 6, no. 61, p. eabj7562, 2021

    work page 2021

  11. [11]

    On aerial robots with grasping and perching capabilities: A comprehensive review,

    J. Meng, J. Buzzatto, Y . Liu, and M. Liarokapis, “On aerial robots with grasping and perching capabilities: A comprehensive review,” Frontiers in Robotics and AI, vol. 8, p. 739173, 2022

    work page 2022

  12. [12]

    Albero: Agile landing on branches for environmental robotics operations,

    L. Zheng and S. Hamaza, “Albero: Agile landing on branches for environmental robotics operations,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 2845–2852, 2024

    work page 2024

  13. [13]

    Reconfigurable multi-rotor for high-precision physical interaction,

    J. Taylor, N. Imanberdiyev, M. Y . M. Chuah, W.-Y . Yau, G. Sartoretti, and E. Camci, “Reconfigurable multi-rotor for high-precision physical interaction,” inProceedings of IROS 2024, pp. 8069–8074

    work page 2024

  14. [14]

    A comparison of workspace and force capabilities between classes of underactuated mechanisms,

    R. Balasubramanian and A. M. Dollar, “A comparison of workspace and force capabilities between classes of underactuated mechanisms,” inProceedings of ICRA 2011, pp. 3489–3496

    work page 2011

  15. [15]

    A prismatic-revolute-revolute joint hand for grasping from unmanned aerial vehicles and other minimally constrained vehicles,

    S. B. Backus and A. M. Dollar, “A prismatic-revolute-revolute joint hand for grasping from unmanned aerial vehicles and other minimally constrained vehicles,”Journal of Mechanisms and Robotics, vol. 10, no. 2, p. 025006, 2018

    work page 2018

  16. [16]

    A robot hand for versatile grasping with tendon-driven telescopic fingers,

    Y . Wang, K. Kakino, W. Li, S. Togo, H. Yokoi, and Y . Jiang, “A robot hand for versatile grasping with tendon-driven telescopic fingers,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 2957–2964, 2024

    work page 2024

  17. [17]

    A dexterous and compliant aerial continuum manipulator for cluttered and constrained environments,

    R. Peng, Y . Wang, M. Lu, and P. Lu, “A dexterous and compliant aerial continuum manipulator for cluttered and constrained environments,” Nature Communications, vol. 16, no. 1, p. 889, 2025

    work page 2025

  18. [18]

    Frictional and prismatic pin-array gripper for universal gripping and stable tool manipulation,

    C. Lee, H. Kim, M. Oh, K. Ok, and S.-H. Ahn, “Frictional and prismatic pin-array gripper for universal gripping and stable tool manipulation,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 41, pp. 6693– 6706, 2025

    work page 2025

  19. [19]

    Design and development of compactly folding parallel open-close gripper with wide stroke,

    A. Kobayashi, J. Kinugawa, S. Arai, and K. Kosuge, “Design and development of compactly folding parallel open-close gripper with wide stroke,” inProceedings of IROS 2019. IEEE, 2019, pp. 2408– 2414

    work page 2019

  20. [20]

    Grasp force magnifying mechanism for parallel jaw grippers,

    T. Takaki and T. Omata, “Grasp force magnifying mechanism for parallel jaw grippers,” inProceedings of ICRA 2007. IEEE, 2007, pp. 199–204

    work page 2007

  21. [21]

    (2026) Resistograph® - the resistance drill for detecting decay in wood

    Rinntech. (2026) Resistograph® - the resistance drill for detecting decay in wood. [Online]. Available: https://rinntech.info/products/ resistograph/

    work page 2026

  22. [22]

    Px4: A node-based multithreaded open source robotics framework for deeply embedded platforms,

    L. Meier, D. Honegger, and M. Pollefeys, “Px4: A node-based multithreaded open source robotics framework for deeply embedded platforms,” inProceedings of ICRA 2015, pp. 6235–6240

    work page 2015

  23. [23]

    Simulation of a tilt-rotor uav with a cable-driven gripper for high-precision physical interaction,

    Y . T. Chen, J. Taylor, N. Imanberdiyev, and E. Camci, “Simulation of a tilt-rotor uav with a cable-driven gripper for high-precision physical interaction,” inProceedings of ICUAS 2025, pp. 332–339

    work page 2025

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 4, 2026.